August 2005 - ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

GGF-DMTF Work Register
by Hiro Kishimoto 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

Hi all, Tom Roney, GGF forum-level liaison to DMTF, ask us to review updated GGF-DMTF Work Register document. OGSA-WG already has dialogue with DMTF folks and I think this document is consistent with our on going activity. Thus I would like to put this item into next Monday call agenda. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

4 10

Teleconference minutes - 3 August 2005
by Andreas Savva 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

Minutes attached. This was a short call mainly on the GGF-DMTF work register proposal. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050803/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 3 August 2005 =================================== * Participants Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Tom Maguire (IBM) Mark Morgan (UVa) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jay Unger (IBM) Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Minutes: Andreas Savva * August 1 minutes approved with no changes * GGF-DMTF work item There were some issues raised on the list, mainly in Hiro's emails. - Specific date for deliverables/milestones - In Tom's draft the milestone is Feb 2006. Agreed to 'loosen it up' by changing to 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2006. (Another motivation for this is so as not to compete with the related work item from Data.) - And also reword this milestone as "goal for an initial draft" - In any case, the final deadline will have to be negotiated with the DMTF. But the DMTF will not accept a work item that does not have a milestone. - Text on deliverable (all classes or selected only) - Discussed whether this should be a generic mapping or only for selected classes, and what that would mean. - Agreed to keep the request for 'generic' mapping but change the text from "DMTF will define" to "DMTF will work with OGSA to define". - And also add some words to explain what a 'generic mapping' means. Action: Tom M to revise the work item proposal and send to the list, Tom Roney, and the DMTF TC contacts. When sending to the DMTF TC, make it clear that this is a *tentative* proposal, not yet approved by the GFSG. * August F2F update Hiro updated schedule based on Monday's discussion. He contacted and got approvals from the affected group chairs. There was an OGSA EMS-CDDLM phone call before this call. Hiro has received an agenda for the OGDA-CDDLM F2F session and will merge it in the overall agenda. * OGSA Architecture and Glossary 1.5 No update. * Next Call Schedule ** Monday - Resource modelling discussion - Fred has started circulating a first draft to a small group of people. It will be reviewed Monday to check that it addresses the right area but detailed discussion on the content will be left for the F2F. - Provisioning ** Wednesday - OGSA AuthZ - Architecture and Glossary 1.5

1 0

Notes from the OGSA EMS & CDDLM meeting
by Milojicic, Dejan S 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

By phone, 8/3, 2pm-3pm PST. Attendees: Mark Morgan, Hiro Kishimoto, Chris Smith, Stuart Schaefer, Jun Tatemura, Ravi Subramanian, Mike Behrens, Steve Loughran, and Dejan Milojicic. Notes taker: Dejan Milojicic. Agenda: 1. Go over the two documents (CDDLM Foundation document for EMS people an the OGSA architecture document for the CDDLM people. Dejan suggested that CDDLM is part of the EMS, but there are other pieces which are out of scope. Chris asked about activity v. solution. The answer was that we support solutions not activities. Hiro: can we also support C code, Cobol, etc. The answer is yes, but we need to support the environments. Ravi: we need to resolve the terms between the two groups prior to the meeting. Hiro: there is a glossary document. Good suggestion (Dejan), that way we can get consistent independently. It is linked off of https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/docman/draft-ggf-ogsa-spec/ en/23. Ravi: There is a space for provisioning in the EMS document, we try to plug in the CDDLM as a virtual exercise. We try to effectively see if CDDLM is compatible with OGSA. Chris, there are issues with containers. Chris: extending JSDL (extensions) with CDDLM or embedding the schemas. Steve: it is batch -centric. Chris: it is not really. Ravi: keep provisioning separate from JSDL. Dejan: summary, this is a good proposal, but for simplicity reasons, we'll keep it out of our immediate objectives for the time being. 2. Agenda for F2F (8/16, 1:30-5 in Sunnyvale): Action preparation for the meeting: sync up with glossary (Ravi: also check up the glossary if we have any comments). A) (1:30-1:45) Introduction (learn more about EMS broader picture, in the past wee overviewed CDDLM) B) (1:45-3:15) Defining architectural relationship (This is really related to the pictures we discussed above, Fig 5 in the OGSA arch & Fig 7 in CDDLM Foundation) C) (3:15-3:45) Indebt overview of the CDDLM interfaces (if needed) D) (3:45-4:15) Description and integration of ACS & CDDLM (Ravi: added BES as well). E) (4:15-4:45) Integration roadmap F) (4:45-5:00) Next steps (Dejan: above times are approximate, they may change as needed, e.g. if we cover some of the later items in earlier sessions) Ravi: is this similar to BES interfaces activities. Chris: this was exactly how I was thinking wrt BES container. We can jump ahead to conclusion that CDDLM also created container. it is definitely in the context of BES cause we will run through the BES and we will automatically se how it fits with BES. The same applies to RSF. It is almost looking through a use case how do we do with something that is given to job provisioning. Hiro: There is one more important component, ACS. Dejan/Steve, we came to some agreement with ACS at GGF 14 and there is no need for changes to CDDLM wrt ACS. Hiro: ACS had a F2F meeting in North Carolina. Mike prepared a document describing relationship between CDDLM and ACS. Ravi: we can add the ACS diagram to the figure. (as well as BES), this way we can tackle multiple birds at the same time. Mike: ACS has taken requirements wrt contents, there are some security considerations and creation time issues that would require something other than URL, maybe service invocation, we can go over these details at F2F. 3. Techniques and expectations: Dejan: informal approach, discussions, drawing pictures, agreeing on interfaces, it is ok to have a few more open issues, but resolve them at latest at GGF15. Ravi: can someone bring digital camera, take a snapshot and then send it, put it on Webex. Hiro: expects architectural diagram and text describing components, so that they can come into the next version of architectural document. Ravi: when is the time (Hiro: 1:30-5pm)

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] GGF-DMTF Work Register
by Andrea Westerinen (andreaw) 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

Fred, Just to be clear ... You say "A resource model has semantics and a rendering. The semantics are just, say, a UML model with some textual descriptions. CIM itself only has semantics." This is indeed true - but UML classes (and CIM) have both properties and operations. The operations are behavior - and while their implementation is not specified, their parameters are defined. Andrea > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Fred Maciel > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:30 AM > To: Donal K. Fellows; Tom Maguire > Cc: Ellen Stokes; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; Tom Roney > Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] GGF-DMTF Work Register > > Hi Donal, > > > Tom Maguire wrote: > > > So my point is: > > > 1) ANY resource model we use MUST have a normative xml expression > > > 2) ANY resource model we use MUST have a normative wsdl expression > > > > > > For specific, specific disciplines we undoubtedly will use > > portions of > > > CIM. We (OGSA) will undoubtedly use portions of other > > resource models > > > (perhaps IETF for networking). All of the models we use > > MUST meet the > > > normative low bar above 1 & 2. > > > > I wasn't aware that resource models were inherently > services. They're > > just a way of describing the terms used in some data > relating to the > > description of a resource, surely? Or do you distinguish between > > purely passive descriptive models and active manipulable > models of a > > resource? > > I don't know if you were in the teleconference (we gave some > more background on this there), so here is a rather short > clarification. > > A resource model has semantics and a rendering. The semantics > are just, say, a UML model with some textual descriptions. > CIM itself only has semantics. > If you want to access or exchange information using the model > semantics you need a rendering -- say, a mapping of the > semantics over XML, plus a binding over a given network > protocol, etc. I presume that by "services" and "active > manipulable model" you mean the rendering. So, I agree that, > the model [semantics] are not services. > > What we are proposing to the DMTF is to create a rendering, > but not down to the bindings. It's just an XML representation > of CIM, plus *part* of the WSDL definition. The most concise > way that I can explain this is: > "everything that can be made common among multiple OGSA basic > profiles". > > Hope that helps, > > Fred Maciel > Hitachi America R&D >

2 1

Teleconference minutes - 1 August 2005
by Andreas Savva 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

Minutes attached (really this time). Topics: * F2F update * OGSA Roadmap public comment review * GGF-DMTF register discussion * OGSA Architecture and Glossary 1.5 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050801/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 1 August 2005 =================================== * Participants Jay Unger (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Ellen Stokes (IBM) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Mark Morgan (UVa) Takuya Mori (NEC) Tom Maguire (IBM) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Apologies: Mike Behrens, Pete Ziu, Chris Smith Minutes: Andreas Savva * July 27 minutes approved with no changes * WSRF BP 1.0 update WSRF BP 1.0 was submitted to the GGF Editor last Friday. * F2F update - Some security members can attend on Monday only. Others can join by phone but only during Monday morning. - Some BES members may be available only on Monday. - Agreed to shift Monday & Tuesday schedule: - Security starting at 09:30-10:30 - BES shifted by 1:30 hours - RSS for the last 90 minutes of the day; continuing on Tuesday morning. Actions: - Takuya to confirm new schedule with security participants - Andreas to confirm with Darren Pulsipher (BES) - Hiro to confirm with RSS group - Friday morning is scheduled for OGSA Arch 1.5 & Glossary 1.5 - Jem has a conflict and may not be able to dial in. - The Data group does not need a slot this F2F. - Agreed to move the OGSA Arch 1.5 and Glossary 1.5 discussion to Thursday afternoon Action: Hiro will update draft agenda and circulate before the next call. * OGSA Roadmap public comment review - Quick overview of the submitted public comments. - "Quality of work not..." The two bullets at the bottom of page 3 do not say that, but it may be somewhat implied. Agreed to revise text. - Also deleted "...rushing to this task..." in the leading paragraph. - "Normative OGSA ...": Jem to come up with revised text. - "Recommended profile": Add an explanatory sentence and citation to the Profile definition document. - Add new projects (submitted text) and change the list of projects at the top of section 8 so that additions or deletions do not cause changes. - Satoshi Itoh's comment. Agreed that it cannot be addressed in Roadmap 1.0. Leave for a future version of the Roadmap. - Toshi Nakata's comment: Partly along the same lines as Itoh's. Agreed this is future work. - Also - WS-Agreement is already mentioned as part of section 5.2.2. - It should also be mentioned in a potential Data profile as well. - Agreed to OGSA-AuthZ document addition. Action: Takuya will provide an entry for OGSA-AuthZ document by next week. Action: Jem will prepare a revision of the Roadmap based on the public comments for review next week. * GGF-DMTF register discussion Ref: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/07/msg00117.html ** Background There is an existing agreement between GGF and DMTF but it is obsolete. Tom Rooney was asked to update it. The question is whether OGSA has any concrete items for this work register. ** Milestones / Dates section - The current draft says "The DMTF will publicize the following..." - Agreed that this is a good start - It would also be useful to have WSDL for abstract porttypes for operations and properties defined by CIM so as to be able to mix in with GGF specifications, e.g., BES. - WS-CIM is doing this kind of work but for management endpoints. - Expect this mapping to XML to be generic. It should be common across multiple profiles. It should answer the question of "how to take a CIM class and express it as an abstract porttype and then use it in another specification." - Other groups (DAIS) have similar requirements; these requirements are partly represented by the last bullet in the current draft. - This rendering work is independent and separate from the resource modelling work that Fred is doing (change requests to the model). The modelling work is not part of this register. - This rendering may be part of the work of the WS-CIM WG or a subgroup. It would be nice (but not essential) to be able to point out which group should take this on. Action: Tom to draw up text and send out to the list within the day. If there are no objections, send the text to Tom Rooney and put forward to the DMTF TC. (There is a TC call tomorrow hence the need for urgency.) * OGSA Architecture and Glossary 1.5 Andreas gave an overview of what changes he expects to see in the Architecture document for the next version. (The Glossary is a companion to the Architecture document and should be updated accordingly.) - OGSA 1.5 is probably a conservative update. There is a lot of work in progress but it has not reached the level that can produce a substantially revised document. - A number of comments for OGSA 1.0 were postponed for later versions. All of these do not have to be addressed in 1.5 but they offer a starting point. A modified spreadsheet with these comments is uploaded on gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/deferred-ogsa-1.0-pub… (The name of the previous owner of each section and people who volunteered to work on it are in parentheses.) ** Abstract (Andreas) - Minor changes to bring in line with revised document ** 1. Introduction (Andreas) - Minor changes to bring in line with revised document ** 2. Requirements (Andreas) - Minor changes since the requirements are drawn from the use cases. - Are there any other new use cases that should be added? Probably not for this version. ** 3.1 Overview ** 3.2 OGSA Framework (Ravi?, Jem, Andreas) - From the 1.0 public comments there is a disconnect between this section and the rest of the document. Since architectural work is paused it might be worth trying to simplify and tie it in better with the rest of the document. There were also some terminology problems. ** 3.3 Infrastructure (Ian?, Tom, Jem) - It should be updated to reflect the work done on the Basic Profile. - Tom and Jem agreed to work on this section. - WSDM is mentioned in this section but work has not progressed sufficiently to make more concrete statements here or in other sections. Review status again at the F2F. - Naming should probably be moved to this section from Information services. (>Andrew) ** 3.4 Execution Management (Andrew) - At least minor changes to update with ongoing work in BES, RSS etc. - The terminology problems left unresolved in 1.0 should be fixed. ** 3.5 Data (Dave B) - The Data group(s) have been quite active. There is a draft Data Architecture document so this section should be updated to give a summary of that document, in the same way that [3.6 RM] is a condensed version of GFD-I.45. So a major revision of this section may be required. - There is a scheduling problem since the final version of the Data Architecture document is due in December. Agreed that an update based on a snapshot of that document would be acceptable. ** 3.6 Resource Management (Fred) From the public comments: - Look into refining sections 3.6.3 and 3.6.5. And from recent activities an update may be needed to include the results of the resource modelling work. Fred is working on a resource modelling document which will be reviewed next week. ** 3.7 Security (Frank, Takuya) Expecting minor revisions. - Can sections 3.7.5 and 3.7.6 be refined more? - Are other revisions are necessary to include the OGSA Authorization Attributes work? ** 3.8 Self-management (Jeffrin?, Andreas, Tom) Minor revisions, if any. This topic has been put on hold by the group. Tom volunteered to help with this section. ** 3.9 Information (Bill?, Abdeslem, Andrew?) - Minor revisions since the Information Architecture document is on hold. - Some updates for the INFO-D work may be in order. - Naming should be moved out of this section and updated. ** Glossary This is a companion document and should be updated accordingly. ** Overall - Make sure that the document is tied better together---especially but not limited to the "Interactions with the rest of OGSA" sections in each capability section. - The level of description of the various capabilities should, as far as possible, be made more consistent. But this is difficult to achieve since work on the capabilities is not progressing uniformly. Andreas to follow up with capability owners. * Next Call - F2F update (if any) - OGSA 1.5 discussion (depending on who is present)

3 2

RE: [ogsa-wg] GGF-DMTF Work Register
by Fred Maciel 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Hi Donal, > Tom Maguire wrote: > > So my point is: > > 1) ANY resource model we use MUST have a normative xml expression > > 2) ANY resource model we use MUST have a normative wsdl expression > > > > For specific, specific disciplines we undoubtedly will use > portions of > > CIM. We (OGSA) will undoubtedly use portions of other > resource models > > (perhaps IETF for networking). All of the models we use > MUST meet the > > normative low bar above 1 & 2. > > I wasn't aware that resource models were inherently services. They're > just a way of describing the terms used in some data relating to the > description of a resource, surely? Or do you distinguish > between purely > passive descriptive models and active manipulable models of a > resource? I don't know if you were in the teleconference (we gave some more background on this there), so here is a rather short clarification. A resource model has semantics and a rendering. The semantics are just, say, a UML model with some textual descriptions. CIM itself only has semantics. If you want to access or exchange information using the model semantics you need a rendering -- say, a mapping of the semantics over XML, plus a binding over a given network protocol, etc. I presume that by "services" and "active manipulable model" you mean the rendering. So, I agree that, the model [semantics] are not services. What we are proposing to the DMTF is to create a rendering, but not down to the bindings. It's just an XML representation of CIM, plus *part* of the WSDL definition. The most concise way that I can explain this is: "everything that can be made common among multiple OGSA basic profiles". Hope that helps, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

Proposed agenda for Aug 3rd call
by Hiro Kishimoto 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 3rd Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CDT). We expect to have short call on Wednesday. Dial-in numbers for Wednesday: Free: +1-888-452-0308 Intl/Toll: +1-484-644-0505 PIN: 71815 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0803 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (10 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (if available) Agenda bashing 2) August F2F meeting update (20 min) > Proposed modifications are: > (1) Put OGSA security design team session in 9-10:30am Monday. > OGSA-AuthZ-WG folks will also join this session (by phone) > (2) Move OGSA-BES from 9am-12:30pm to 10:30am-3pm Monday > (3) Move OGSA-RSS from 1:30-5pm to 3-5pm Mon and 9-10:30am Tuesday. > (4) Shorten OGSA-ByteIO from 9am-12:30pm to 10:30am-12:30pm Tuesday. > (5) Move OGSA Arch 1.5 discussion from Fri morning to Thur afternoon. > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-Aug-F2F-age… > > If it does not work for you, please let me know. 3) OGSA architecture 1.5 discussion (30 min) 4) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Aug. 8 (Mon) Resource Modeling discussion, Provisioning, F2F preparation Aug. 10 (Wed) OGSA-AuthZ-WG, roadmap, F2F preparation Aug. 15-19 F2F meeting https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Aug F2F meeting draft agenda
by Hiro Kishimoto 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Hi all, Attached is the early draft of the August F2F meeting in SF Bay Area. Please have a look, we will review this at tomorrow's OGSA call. As usual, the file is also uploaded to the GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-Aug-F2F-age… Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

2 2

RM -- No teleconference on August 2nd
by Fred Maciel 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Hi, No Resource Management design team teleconference on August 2nd. I started working on the resource management document that we will discuss on the face-to-face meeting, which I will post to the mailing list later this week. We will review it in the OGSA-WG teleconference on the 8th. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 1st call
by Fred Maciel 01 Aug '05

01 Aug '05

Hi, > I would like to suggest that the OGSA-WG formally ask the > DMTF to provide a > mapping of CIM classes to an abstract portType. Specifically > utilizing the > XML schema (already in the work register) and adding a mapping for CIM > class extrinsic operations to wsdl:operations. I agree. Regards, Fred Maciel.

1 0